For your consideration

I post at several forums, this being the only firearm forum I belong to. At some of these other social networks there are gun sub-forums.

One of these, with a 50% mix of europeans, 30% americans, and the rest mostly canadians, australians, and folks in the middle east. It's a computer game forum. They have a gun owners thread there, where we can discuss firearms, share pictures, and talk about shooting, hunting, and collecting.

That sub-forum has a rule about no gun ownership debates, and there is a sizeable anti-gun crowd on that forum. The nice thing has been to see people not exposed to gun culture before, getting a chance to see it outside of heated debate and fear mongering. There are at least a dozen converts there from the last couple of years and that's satisfying to participate in - when you get to see newbs with their first gun.

Another thread was started recently, in a debate forum there, that asked what gun owners would like to see and would feel positive about that would reform current gun laws in the USA.

Here is the proposal posited there:

Being that the 2nd Amendment has been determined by the Supreme Court to be an Individual Right, the following changes are proposed:

1. A National ID Card issued to any law-abiding citizen that passes a background check and a safety qualification course.

2. The bearer will be able to carry open or concealed except where barred by Federal Law.

3. The bearer will be able to buy any firearm in any state of the Union without additional backgrounds checks upon presentation of the National ID Card.

4. The bearer will be able to transport firearms anywhere within the United States, following standard shipping safety practices.

5. The barrel length of a firearm will no longer be subject to government regulation

6. Silencers will no longer be subject to government regulation.

7. Magazine capacity will no longer be subject to government regulation.

8. The manufacture date of a firearm will no longer be subject to government regulation.

9. Cosmetic features of a firearm will not be subject to government regulation.

10. All fees collected to issue said Card will be used to help fund a national child firearm safety program.

11. Conviction of a felony revokes one's right to bear this card.

12. Citizenship is required to bear this card.

13. The bearer of this card has the right to possession of a firearm in U.S. and International waters.

14. The involuntary commitment to a mental health facility revokes ones right to bear this card.

15. No new regulations may be added regarding firearms except by a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate.

(NOT my proposal, just reposting it here for discussion)

My question is - should I get involved in that debate about his proposal? If I do respond, what do you think I should say? What do you think? Do you have any constructive criticisms to add?

Keeping in mind that I believe there are still plenty of fence-sitters in this very large group...

I would resist any "nationalization" of the process. The point being: do nothing to increase the size or scope of the federal government.

Mike

Cluster Bomb

November 24, 2012, 12:17 AM

The gov has no right to regulate firearms. just like it has no right to regulate religion or free speech.

M-Cameron

November 24, 2012, 12:23 AM

......what is the purpose of the 'national ID card' ?

what does it do differently that other forms of ID( drivers license, passport, ect.) dont already do?

wojownik

November 24, 2012, 12:32 AM

The proposal would seem to a step in the opposite direction of the the right to keep and bear arms as an Individual Right - i.e. a fundamental right - in the Second Amendment.

I suspect the individual floating that idea is having a hard time coming to grips with the idea that the RKBA is a fundamental right, rather than a derivative right. That is, it is the possession of the national ID card that would would be the source of the right, and this would move the ball backwards away from the RKBA as an underlying fundamental right.

It's kind of like the author of the proposal is willing to make a very big trade off -- by watering down an Individual Right (making it derivative to holding a little ID card), in exchange for getting some concessions on a few specific things like regulation on silencers.

A fundamental right is a fundamental right. Think about the implications if the proposal was to issue a National ID card, issuance of which would grant the holder due process of law, or freedom of religion, or freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc. No, in the context of what an individual fundamental right actually is, the idea of a National ID card is fairly noxious.

DammitBoy

November 24, 2012, 01:03 AM

I don't think this guy believes the card is the source of the right, but simply representative of that fundamental right. What are concealed carry permits? Why do states use those?

I suspect I'm going to hear a lot of "What's the difference with how gun rights are already restricted and regulated?"

Cluster - a lot of folks would say government regulates the crap out of religion and free speech.

I'm not sure what I think about the concept, but I have been contemplating what those changes would do to the gun community. I'm still looking for advice on how to discuss this there - without coming across too heavy handed or condescending.

Owen Sparks

November 24, 2012, 01:36 AM

How about a government issued card for people wishing to participate in organized religion, speak publicly about politics, possess a newspaper or a Bible?

Sounds like a bad idea doesn't it? So does this. You should not have to prove your worthiness to exercise a constitutionally enumerated right.

Kendahl

November 24, 2012, 01:50 AM

I object to 11, 12, 14 and 15.

11: Murder and insider stock trading are both felonies. One is violent, the other isn't. The stock trader isn't likely to maim or kill anyone.

12: Legal permanent residents (green card) already have undergone a more stringent background check than is required to purchase a firearm. In many states, they are eligible for concealed carry permits.

14: Most mentally ill are not dangerous except, perhaps, to themselves. The few that are dangerous need to remain in secure psychiatric hospitals until it is certain that they are cured. (A permanent cure is unlikely.)

15: No need for additional regulations.

Otherwise, my only reservation is that this be shall issue to anyone who qualifies.

Of course, denial of a permit won't stop someone from acting out evil intentions. Timothy McVeigh murdered a lot of people without shooting them.

Impureclient

November 24, 2012, 01:58 AM

I'll get poopooed on but if if I had to have some dumb card (#1)to get # 2-15, then I' have to go with it.
We already are all carded up anyway. Drivers license, birth certificate, passport, CCW card, SAMSclub...it's all the same thing. Besides if you can get qualified to carry concealed, then you are already there. Who would fight this, felons?
The only people I can see having a real problem with this are ones who don't jump through hoops to be allowed to carry in their State. For those of us who do/did, we already had to get fingerprinted, checked and do a safety course.
I'd go with this just because of the silencer and barrel length thing alone. All in all it is not a step backwards from the point of #1 vs #2-15

Missed this: #11. Conviction of a VIOLENT felony revokes one's right to bear this card. & #12 should be same as a conceal permit, if they can retain a green card and pass CCW permit, then they should be good to go.

hardheart

November 24, 2012, 02:14 AM

You should not have to prove your worthiness to exercise a constitutionally enumerated right.
What constitutes proving worthiness? Should age, citizenship, or legal standing be checked before selling someone a firearm? I'm old enough, a US citizen, and not a felon, so I don't care either way. The underage illegal alien with a string of violent crimes is going to have a gun either way, so I don't suppose it matters to me if they bought it in Wal-Mart or an alley, just wondering.

Twiki357

November 24, 2012, 02:23 AM

I would support numbers 5,6,7, 9 and 15. No way on the rest.

Although, numbers 1 and 2 "Could" be tolerable IF they preempted ALL state laws and were on a "Shall issue" basis, but it will never happen. The Federal Government could not preempt the states rights without a Constitutional amendment that would have to include a reaffirmation of the Second Amendment and none of the states would forfeit their rights by approving it.

MistWolf

November 24, 2012, 03:14 AM

Our rights are guaranteed to us by our creator, not any government. We do no give any of our rights away to anyone, or we will end up giving them all away.

Let's try applying this same logic to another right- freedom of speech

1. A National ID Card issued to any law-abiding citizen that passes a background check and a safety qualification course.

2. The bearer will be able to post on internet forums except where barred by Federal Law.

3. The bearer will be able to buy any discussion in any state of the Union without additional backgrounds checks upon presentation of the National ID Card.

4. The bearer will be able to transport literature anywhere within the United States, following standard shipping safety practices.

5. Content will no longer be subject to government regulation

6. Religion will no longer be subject to government regulation.

7. Server capacity will no longer be subject to government regulation.

8. The manufacture date of a computer will no longer be subject to government regulation.

9. Cosmetic features of a website will not be subject to government regulation.

10. All fees collected to issue said Card will be used to help fund a national program to teach children safe religion.

11. Conviction of a felony revokes one's right to bear this card.

12. Citizenship is required to bear this card.

13. The bearer of this card has the right to possession of a firearm in U.S. and International waters.

14. The involuntary commitment to a mental health facility revokes ones right to bear this card.

15. No new regulations may be added regarding firearms except by a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate.

Individuals who do no qualify for, or have been had their Natioanal ID card revoked, forfeit their 1st Amendment rights. A new federal agency will be established for the issuance of the National ID card. This new agency will set card fees, testing standards and perform needed background checks.

As you can see, there are some good things, but all it takes is to revoke or simply refuse to issue the NatID at the slightest excuse to take away one's rights

beatledog7

November 24, 2012, 07:47 AM

The only Federal law we need concerning firearms is the one we got first. All the rest are unconstitutional.

jacob2745

November 24, 2012, 06:50 PM

i believe the author of this list may have intended the id card do away with the state by state issued carry permits. One card and you can carry wherever you please in the U.S.

Texan Scott

November 24, 2012, 07:09 PM

NO. The power to issue a permit implies the power to DENY one.

Read your 9th and 10th amendments. Just because a right of the people isn't enumerated does not mean it isn't a right of the people, BUT a power not specifically granted to the federal government is DENIED TO IT, reserved to the states or the people.

The federal government has NO Constitutional authority to regulate firearms possession at a national level - NONE. Show me where the Constitution grants it that power.

The only Federal law we need concerning firearms is the one we got first. All the rest are unconstitutional.
You could say that about the freedom of speech, but real life didn't work out that way.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

backbencher

November 24, 2012, 11:42 PM

15 would require a Constitutional Amendment. I think I prefer the 2nd Amendment to what is proposed. The seeds of destruction of '34 are found in the SCOTUS decision upholding it.

blarby

November 24, 2012, 11:46 PM

My question is - should I get involved in that debate about his proposal?

Other than to say the whole thing reeks, I'd say no.

Keeping in mind that I believe there are still plenty of fence-sitters in this very large group...

Good. Seek them out and counsel them.

medalguy

November 25, 2012, 12:16 AM

Well, I seem to recall another sort of discussion a few years ago. Here are a few lines from that one:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

No card needed.

marv

November 25, 2012, 12:40 AM

Illinois already has #1, their F O I D Firearm Owner's Identification Card, but they don't have any of the others.

Walter

November 25, 2012, 01:11 AM

The gov has no right to regulate firearms.
I agree with the sentiment, and the concept, but, IMHO, it just ain't happening that way. Example: To buy a new gun, you must go to a Federally licensed
firearms dealer. You must fill out a Federally mandated "yellow sheet" form.
And that's just the start of it. To paraphrase an old axiom, the camel's nose is already in the tent.

I certainly don't like the idea of a national I.D. card for firearms ownership, but,
and again, IMHO, the premise the OP put forward would streamline the process, do away with many idiotic state laws, and simplify the law to the extreme.

The only Federal law we need concerning firearms is the one we got first. All the rest are unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional as all those other laws may be, they are still being enforced by fed, state and local LEOs. I wonder if the idea of being "vetted" by one agency for all firearms activities, nationwide, for life, is such a bad idea.

Just a thought...

Walter

Plan2Live

November 25, 2012, 08:38 AM

My curiousity runs in a different direction. The OP mentions the Gaming Forum and says there are many anti-gun folks there. Do the games themselves feature firearms? If so, why are the anti-gunners playing the game? Seems contradictory.

PRM

November 25, 2012, 08:57 AM

Nutts... Nothing but fancy window dressing. For the card to be viable a data base would have to exist identifying who has guns, where they live... and is nothing more than backdoor registration. If the government ever wanted to confiscate them - knowing where to go, and who has them is not a list I would want to be on.

larryh1108

November 25, 2012, 09:17 AM

I chuckle at those who say no to anything that infringes our 2nd amendment right but then go an renew their CCW license when it expires. Our RKBA has already been stepped on by every state government except Vermont. Get off the soapboxes where you say NO to regulation when regulation is already in place. Some states have terrible gun laws (IL, CA, MA, etc). Some have gun laws that are user friendly. I can't drive from my home, where I am legally licensed, to visit my girl with my pistol because she lives over the border. I can't carry while I drive for work because my territory covers 6 states. If a national CCW card allowed every one of us to carry anywhere then count me in. We already have this very process in most of the states. I don't get how someone can state so righteously that he opposes a national registration to carry but pays the fee to carry locally. Double standards, if you ask me.

I just jumped thru the hoops to get my CCW where I live. It includes a national FBI check and fingerprints as well as a sanctionel course. What more could a license to carry federally involve? What rights are we giving up that aren't already taken? If this card gave me the right to carry in any state I wanted, I would be very happy. No, I am not happy I had to go thru the process to start with but if I want to carry it's what I have to do. We're already regulated.

highlander 5

November 25, 2012, 09:21 AM

Anything that requires a fee worrys me. Example We here in Ma have to get an FID card or LTC. Fids were $2 and good for life,LTC were $25 and good for 5 years. Well the laws and fees were changed,no more life time FIDs for $2 they are $25 and good for 6 years and LTC have gone up to $100 for the same period. The Feds could pass a national ID card then slowly increase the fees till no one but the likes of Bloomberg,Trump or Bill gates could afford to own firearms.

Rembrandt

November 25, 2012, 09:32 AM

Why leave a paper trail to your front door?........

Spats McGee

November 25, 2012, 09:41 AM

I'll pass on the proposal. In addition to some of the objections already raised, it would require the federal government to set national standards for the issuance of the ID card and the safety course. I suspect that these "national standards" would be significantly stricter than those set by our more gun-friendly states.

22-rimfire

November 25, 2012, 09:48 AM

Sounds like something that might be done as part of a national gun registry. No card. No guns... These things can be changed at any time. It makes no difference what you are told when a new law is passed.

I would say that this is an attempt at being "reasonable". I see no reason at this point to be reasonable. I doubt they would drop the NICs check or silencer item and I'm surprised that states allow purchase of firearms these days because you have a CCW permit.

I will agree to a national ID card if they send me a monthly $500 check. Forget the gun part.

DammitBoy

November 26, 2012, 12:01 AM

Very interesting points and I'm really enjoying reading everyone's responses. The one thought that keeps popping up in my head regarding comments about the Card vs Rights issue - how do you feel about a voter ID card?

I support voter ID cards - voting is a right. So how is a Gun Permit ID card different? I agree, it should be a shall issue card if one were to be done.

I also think it's meant to replace individual states cards, but could you do it like driver's licenses?

The violent felony suggestion, also a great catch!

Texan Scott

November 26, 2012, 12:18 AM

Voter ID law would be enacted at the State, not Federal, level and enforced at the local precinct, whose concern is that I live (and so vote) at that polling place.
I am affirming a right, not being granted one. If there were any question, they are required to have mechanism for remediation on site.

At NO point would the feds be asked if a Texan has their permission to vote. THAT'S the difference.

DammitBoy

November 26, 2012, 12:48 AM

Good point Tex, voter ID cards affirm a right, they do not grant a right. Same thing with a shall issue gun permit card, it affirms a right.

Texan Scott

November 26, 2012, 01:42 AM

Not quite. While both a voter ID and a shall-issue CHL affirm my rights as a citizen, my voting rights are not contingent upon my completion of government mandated education; the burden of renewing it falls on the government, not the citizen; and the right cannot be denied for failure to pay a fee or fees (amount subject to increase at a later date).

r1derbike

November 26, 2012, 03:06 AM

Absolutely not. A national ID card precludes any proposals below it. We already have our 2nd amendment right to guarantee our ownership, and laws (which are not enforced) which are supposed to regulate the industry.

Problem is, criminals don't obey laws. Who knew?

This proposed ID card could be collected at a future date by tyrannical factions of government, along with the national registered firearms it would surely require, and disarm law-abiding citizens, to be preyed upon by criminals with firearms, as they may get weapons to use against citizens by black market.

No can do. Bad idea.

9MMare

November 26, 2012, 03:20 AM

Interesting thread and I dont mean my reply as a 'pile on'.

The less govt involved in my 2A rights, the better. Why all that regulation? It seems to imply we need some kind of leverage or assurances to *receive* such govt largesse.

Nah uh.

And I object to #10....teach your own kid about gun safety and police/store your weapons at home and in vehicles accordingly.

Now if #10 was to go towards 2A and gun education in public schools, I'd reconsider :-)

Heh, and yes folks, I am a Democrat :-)

9MMare

November 26, 2012, 03:23 AM

Good point Tex, voter ID cards affirm a right, they do not grant a right. Same thing with a shall issue gun permit card, it affirms a right.

Er, arent voter ID cards use to identify voters at the poll? Dont they perform an actual function directly related to exercising that right? Or enabling it?

And they are becoming less and less necessary with so many states going to mail in voting. I no longer even need a voter registration card here. Altho I see the benefit in the state sending confirmation to a newly registered/relocated voter so that they know they are indeed on the rolls.

CZguy

November 26, 2012, 10:06 AM

This proposed ID card could be collected at a future date by tyrannical factions of government, along with the national registered firearms it would surely require, and disarm law-abiding citizens, to be preyed upon by criminals with firearms, as they may get weapons to use against citizens by black market.

Just a thought.........couldn't the same "tyrannical factions of government" get the same information by mining the Internet for posts like that?

Neverwinter

November 26, 2012, 11:36 AM

along with the national registered firearms it would surely require,
Please explain how the initial proposal would require registration of firearms.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

oneounceload

November 26, 2012, 11:47 AM

I would resist any "nationalization" of the process. The point being: do nothing to increase the size or scope of the federal government.

Exactly - then you give up local control at your state level to a central gov't authority that changes its mind depending on which way the campaign money flows

NO THANK YOU

Why do you limit the ability to own a gun to only US citizens? There are plenty of foreign residents who are not a threat but law-abiding business and home owners - why are they excluded?

You can already possess a gun in US waters

It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children, now you want some government group to do so? Use the NRA Eddie Eagle program then

You are also abdicating State's Rights and authority to a higher central government with the carry anywhere not prohibited by Federal law - those who want tight controls will merely push to have the federal law mirror their requirements, thus making many places allowed in other states off limits

WAY too much potential for abuse and destruction of the RKBA; again NO THANK YOU

Transporting guns using standard safety shipping procedures? What is that? - no loaded gun in the driver's reach? So much for protection against car jacking or road rage

DammitBoy

November 26, 2012, 12:11 PM

Why do you limit the ability to own a gun to only US citizens? There are plenty of foreign residents who are not a threat but law-abiding business and home owners - why are they excluded?

You can already possess a gun in US waters

Transporting guns using standard safety shipping procedures? What is that? - no loaded gun in the driver's reach? So much for protection against car jacking or road rage

Good point on foreign residents who are here legally.

There are plenty of restrictions on possessing a firearm in US waters that would be removed by the proposal.

There are states that have laws stopping you from carrying a loaded gun in your vehicle already. This proposal would remove that restriction in those states. I read transporting for shipping as exactly that - firearms you wish to ship - not your concealed or open carry personal firearm?

I agree that a more aggressive government might want to further restrict firearm ownership in the future. The proposal seems to cover that with the 2/3 vote in the house and senate, doesn't it?

Still not sure how I am going to respond at the other forum... I'm reading plenty of criticisms - some of them constructive, but not much advice on how to further a positive discussion...

DammitBoy

November 26, 2012, 12:15 PM

The gov has no right to regulate firearms. just like it has no right to regulate religion or free speech.

And yet the Government does regulate all three.

Why do you think that is and how do you suggest stopping them from further regulation or even removing existing regulations that infringe upon our rights?

oneounceload

November 26, 2012, 12:28 PM

Still not sure how I am going to respond at the other forum... I'm reading plenty of criticisms - some of them constructive, but not much advice on how to further a positive discussion...

All of those points made sound, at least to me, like another "let's compromise". Why is it always the gun owner's who have to compromise? (That would be a starting point for your discussion)
Gun laws do NOTHING to prevent crime (there's another point for your discussion) as criminals are by definition, not going to follow the laws
Nationalizing ANYTHING has ALWAYS failed - there has never been one good Central Fed program involving daily living that has truly worked as designed, especially going back to FDR. Your discussion is really getting down, not to gun rights, but States' rights. What works the folks in NY is not the same as what works for the folks in Florida, etc., and they should determine what will work best in their own state, NOT some central Fed bureaucracy which constantly tries to hammer a round peg in a square hole. There is no "one size fits all" solution in a country with 50 states and as many different cultures as we have - it NEEDS to be done at the State level. That way there is less of a chance of getting an administration that can revoke it all with one "executive order" (another point for your discussion

Good luck with it

beatledog7

November 26, 2012, 12:44 PM

Voter ID cards are state-issued, not Federal.

Almost nothing ever instituted at the Federal level has ever worked. So, constitutionality aside for the moment, why would we want the Feds to run anything?

DammitBoy

November 26, 2012, 02:01 PM

Nationalizing ANYTHING has ALWAYS failed - there has never been one good Central Fed program involving daily living that has truly worked as designed, especially going back to FDR.

I bought two pistols this weekend. Both involved an instant federal background check. The system worked just fine.

For some reason, I cannot do this in any other state in the union. That is just plain stupid. States should not be able to restrict my legal right to buy/own a legal product.

larryh1108

November 26, 2012, 03:11 PM

I agree, DB.

People cry how there is no way they want Big Brother telling them what to do yet they go and get their permit to carry, or whatever, and believe they aren't on anybody's radar. Really? They know where you live and that you (more than likely) own firearms. If you buy a gun they run an NICS check on you. Maybe they destroy these records (cough) and maybe they just keep tracks of the number of hits your file gets but I do not believe, for even one second, that these records are erased, destroyed or not kept in a place for further use, if needed. If you have a permit from your home state, if you gave your fingerprints to get a permit or if you have a FOID type of card, you are registered with a government agency. With computers we have today, especially in government agencies, you are in the system already. Anybody who thinks they have a permit but are invisible are fooling themselves. Really? You don't want the government to know your business? Then turn in your permits and disappear. Otherwise, you are already in the system and will be forever. They already know who you are and where you live. Look at your permit and see what it says. They have the same info.

Impureclient

November 26, 2012, 03:46 PM

^This

oneounceload

November 26, 2012, 03:59 PM

But currently, they do not have the right or ability to tell your governor what he can do regarding firearms in his/her state - and you want them to have that ability? You sound like you must be too young to remember back before the latest, "I'm from the federal Gov't and I am here to help you", or the "let us take care of you" mantras

For some reason, I cannot do this in any other state in the union. That is just plain stupid. States should not be able to restrict my legal right to buy/own a legal product.

That isn't a state issue depriving you, it is the same Fed gov't you want to give even more control to....... really??

Trent

November 26, 2012, 04:02 PM

What have the feds ever run, that they haven't screwed up royally?

Put them in charge of our firearms rights with a national ID?

I don't frigging think so.

oneounceload

November 26, 2012, 04:13 PM

You seem too young to remember the gas crunches in the 70's - the feds made a national one-size fits all rule - 55mph or no highway funds - so states like Montana, Nevada, Wyoming - with low populations and MILES between towns were forced to comply even though it made no sense for them (there's that one size fits all mentality of a central gov't); just what do you think will happen with this? NYC and Chicago will dictate the rules for CCW nationwide, not Tx or Fl. I can see it now - your National ID card will now cost you $2500 per year, you cannot carry with a round in the chamber; you won't be able to carry in ANY place where more than 10 people can congregate, including your own home at a party, and on and on........it was the Fed who put a stop to easily owning full auto guns, it was the Fed who put a stop to you ordering a gun from the back of a magazine and having it delivered to your door, it was the Fed that instituted the 4473, it was the Fed who says a NICS background check is mandatory

They have taken away more of your freedoms and you want to hand them even greater control?

NO THANK YOU

Neverwinter

November 26, 2012, 11:08 PM

You seem too young to remember the gas crunches in the 70's - the feds made a national one-size fits all rule - 55mph or no highway funds - so states like Montana, Nevada, Wyoming - with low populations and MILES between towns were forced to comply even though it made no sense for them (there's that one size fits all mentality of a central gov't); just what do you think will happen with this?
Did fuel efficiency at speeds above 55 magically change because of the lower population or distance between towns?
NYC and Chicago will dictate the rules for CCW nationwide, not Tx or Fl. I can see it now - your National ID card will now cost you $2500 per year, you cannot carry with a round in the chamber; you won't be able to carry in ANY place where more than 10 people can congregate, including your own home at a party, and on and on........
Why would it be based on the outliers of NYC and Chicago when the vast majority of the country has more lenient rules than they do?

it was the Fed who put a stop to easily owning full auto guns, it was the Fed who put a stop to you ordering a gun from the back of a magazine and having it delivered to your door, it was the Fed that instituted the 4473, it was the Fed who says a NICS background check is mandatory

They have taken away more of your freedoms and you want to hand them even greater control?
Have you even read the contents of the proposal? Number 3 directly contradicts your point regarding the NICS, and 4 talks about enabling delivery and shipping.

DammitBoy

November 27, 2012, 10:08 AM

You seem too young to remember the gas crunches in the 70's

You seem to assume a lot. I'm 53 years old and I do not trust our federal government. I have some issues with the proposal posted at the other forum. What I do like about it, is it put more restrictions on the federal government and removes restrictions on gun owners.

What do you think would improve the wording of the proposal or are you just too old to think positively? :D

Axel Larson

November 27, 2012, 07:23 PM

The Problem is it would take away the States right to govern themselves, for good or bad a state has the right to develop its own laws for the most part.
What most people seem to have a problem with is that it would have to be ENFORCED by the federal government.
At the federal level things are easier to give and take as a whole versus states get to pick and choose meaning some have strict gun laws some have more liberal gun laws. The point being right now it is harder for someone to take them away all at once.
I get the person who wrote it meant well but I regret to say I could not support such a proposal. It would in itself undermine other freedoms that are just as important.
If I am wrong in any way please just correct me but that is my understanding of it.

larryh1108

November 27, 2012, 08:14 PM

The 2nd amendment is a national right, not a state right but each state has decided to regulate it how it sees fit. VT has no governing gun laws other than federal laws. IL has it's own laws where you cannot carry, period. CA and MA have laws that choke your rights and it seems that southern and western states have more liberal gun laws than northern and northeast states.

Interpreting the second amendment is now up for 50 different interpretations instead of one. Federal form 4473 should be the only regulation that governs all states. Is freedom of speech regulated by state? Is freedom of the press regulated by each state? Is freedom of religion regulated by each state? Why should any state have the right to override the Constitution of the united States? Form 4473 is complete enough to grant or deny the right to bear arms. No more regulation is needed. If I wish to give my girlfriend a few of my guns, she lives 1/2 hour away in another state. I have to send my handguns thru my FFL to her FFL who then transfers them to her. It costs $35 for my shipping and FFL transfer per handgun to send it and it costs $35 for her FFL fees on her end. That $210 to give her 3 of my handguns plus hours of time on both sides. I have a handgun permit in my state. She has a handgun permit in her state. This is pure BS but by allowing each state the right to regulate a basic freedom, we get this crap.

I go to a gun show in a state next to me. I want to buy a gun. I have to find an (my) instate FFL at the show to accept the transfer and pay him to hand it from the seller to me. If there is no FFL from my state then the seller has to ship it to my FFL and I have to pay shipping on top of the transfer fees. I am standing across from him and holding the gun. I have my cash and permit. This is a good thing? For fear that we will lose our rights (giving authority to one governing body) we are giving the power to 50 different states who each have their own agenda. I'm sorry but that's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If you can pass all the answers on form 4473 then you should be able to buy in any state, at any time. With computers we have today, there is a paper trail no matter where you buy except private party and in some states (CT) you have to let the state govt know when you buy or sell private party. This is just wrong. 50 fingers in the pot cannot ever be better than 1 if that 1 knows where the boundaries are. SCOTUS has already stated their wishes. I doubt they will look at another ruling to take away these rights just because it has changed their judges. There has to be compelling reasons to challenge an amendment. It's already been challenged.

Axel Larson

November 27, 2012, 09:05 PM

First off having to go through a FFL because of state borders was last I checked a FEDERAL ruling.
Second some states do recognize carry permits from other states, I realize not all do but it is better then nothing.
Thirdly the fact is the reason CA, IL, NY and so on have strict gun laws are because of the major cities in those states. The Major cities end up running most of the state it is what it is, I am not saying it is right or that it can't be changed but for now that is how it is and I for one do not want the chance of the major cities running the entire country, might not happen but still.
Maybe I need to take off the tinfoil hat:).
Also VT does have state gun laws for instance no suppressors and no loaded long arms in vehicles.

DammitBoy

November 27, 2012, 10:04 PM

Interpreting the second amendment is now up for 50 different interpretations instead of one. Federal form 4473 should be the only regulation that governs all states. Is freedom of speech regulated by state? Is freedom of the press regulated by each state? Is freedom of religion regulated by each state? Why should any state have the right to override the Constitution of the united States?

Very well put Larry! The States will make no law restricting an enumerated constitutional right.

And for the States Rights advocates, states really don't have rights since the civil war.

CZguy

November 28, 2012, 12:51 AM

And for the States Rights advocates, states really don't have rights since the civil war.

Unfortunately, that's the plain truth of it.

oneounceload

November 28, 2012, 09:37 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by oneounceload View Post
You seem too young to remember the gas crunches in the 70's - the feds made a national one-size fits all rule - 55mph or no highway funds - so states like Montana, Nevada, Wyoming - with low populations and MILES between towns were forced to comply even though it made no sense for them (there's that one size fits all mentality of a central gov't); just what do you think will happen with this?
Did fuel efficiency at speeds above 55 magically change because of the lower population or distance between towns?
It made no sense for folks traveling those great distances when previously, there was no speed limit in those states
Quote:
NYC and Chicago will dictate the rules for CCW nationwide, not Tx or Fl. I can see it now - your National ID card will now cost you $2500 per year, you cannot carry with a round in the chamber; you won't be able to carry in ANY place where more than 10 people can congregate, including your own home at a party, and on and on........
Why would it be based on the outliers of NYC and Chicago when the vast majority of the country has more lenient rules than they do?
Because those places have the political pull to make sure their wishes are granted
Quote:
it was the Fed who put a stop to easily owning full auto guns, it was the Fed who put a stop to you ordering a gun from the back of a magazine and having it delivered to your door, it was the Fed that instituted the 4473, it was the Fed who says a NICS background check is mandatory

They have taken away more of your freedoms and you want to hand them even greater control?
Have you even read the contents of the proposal? Number 3 directly contradicts your point regarding the NICS, and 4 talks about enabling delivery and shipping.

Why do you feel the NEED for the NICS in the first place? It wasn't necessary for centuries beforehand
Number 4 says to transport a firearm with regards to standard shipping practices - I transport mine loaded - that is against standard shipping practices

This whole proposal is another compromise on our part with nothing coming our way except greater fed control

The comment about the NICS working perfectly? I bought many a gun where the NICS wasn't used - originally because it didn't exist, and at other times because I bought FTF

oneounceload

November 28, 2012, 09:39 AM

I go to a gun show in a state next to me. I want to buy a gun. I have to find an (my) instate FFL at the show to accept the transfer and pay him to hand it from the seller to me. If there is no FFL from my state then the seller has to ship it to my FFL and I have to pay shipping on top of the transfer fees. I am standing across from him and holding the gun. I have my cash and permit. This is a good thing? For fear that we will lose our rights (giving authority to one governing body) we are giving the power to 50 different states who each have their own agenda. I'm sorry but that's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Your FFL at an out of state show handing you a gun when not at his place of business?

DammitBoy

November 28, 2012, 11:15 AM

@ oneounceload; As presented, NYC and Chicago would have no say concerning CCW nationwide. In fact, that's the whole point of the proposal - to stop states and cities from restricting an enumerated constitutional right.

Transporting firearms is in regards to shipping - not CCW.

Further, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand, you say States will no longer have a say and then in the next sentence, you say some States will still have a say. Which is it?

How would you change any wording in the proposal to make it better, giving more protection to the gun owner from the government (state or federal)?

larryh1108

November 28, 2012, 06:18 PM

Your FFL at an out of state show handing you a gun when not at his place of business?

My FFL does this. He says that at a gun show it is considered an extension of his business for the purpose of the show. Who am I to disagree or question him? It's all in the paperwork anyways, logging it in, logging it out. That remains the same.

Neverwinter

November 28, 2012, 10:15 PM

It made no sense for folks traveling those great distances when previously, there was no speed limit in those states

You still haven't explained why those states are not beholden to the laws of physics that govern fuel efficiency. There was a gas crunch at the time, remember?

Because those places have the political pull to make sure their wishes are grantedWhich explains why there are national soft drink laws and a national restriction on concealed carry...

Why do you feel the NEED for the NICS in the first place? It wasn't necessary for centuries beforehand
Number 4 says to transport a firearm with regards to standard shipping practices - I transport mine loaded - that is against standard shipping practices

This whole proposal is another compromise on our part with nothing coming our way except greater fed control
Again, have you even read the proposal before reverting to your anti-federal government stance? It would eliminate the NICS and remove the special treatment for shipping firearms.

@ oneounceload; As presented, NYC and Chicago would have no say concerning CCW nationwide. In fact, that's the whole point of the proposal - to stop states and cities from restricting an enumerated constitutional right.

Further, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand, you say States will no longer have a say and then in the next sentence, you say some States will still have a say. Which is it?

He might believe that the rules resulting from such a centralized structure would be based on NYC and Chicago, despite the fact that there isn't evidence to support that.

It's about a cognitive dissonance in which the increase of freedom in restricted states and cities is butting against the dislike of the federal government. The focus on the perception of NYC and Chicago making the rules is probably necessary to maintain that dissonance. It's like opposing segregation reform at the federal level because of the fear that the worst states in the South will be setting the rules.

srawl

November 28, 2012, 11:11 PM

I understand the point but adding laws when laws need to be removed doesnt make much sense...

DammitBoy

November 28, 2012, 11:26 PM

Shane - the proposal eliminates many restrictions on firearm owners - one new law that eliminates about two dozen horrible infringements - not even counting states restrictions.

CZguy

November 29, 2012, 02:41 PM

I understand the point but adding laws when laws need to be removed doesnt make much sense...

In my state laws are seldom repealed, they just stop enforcing them.

We still have ones on the books to have a man walk ahead of a car to warn people so the horses won't be startled.

I'm certainly not saying that this is the right way to do things, I'm just acknowledging that that's how it done in Missouri.

Let's then issue a national ID card for 1st amendment rights. Must read/write English...

I agree, speaking English should be a requirement of citizenship.

Guessing you never had to get a permit to legally assemble and exercise your right to free speech? Or are you referring to the huge amount of laws States have that infringe upon our freedom of speech?

Because there are a bunch of States/Cities infringing upon your right to bear arms...

Notice how one of those things is not like the other?

oneounceload

November 29, 2012, 03:02 PM

My state do not infringe on my rights to the extent that the fed does

You still haven't explained why those states are not beholden to the laws of physics that govern fuel efficiency. There was a gas crunch at the time, remember?
No, there wasn't- I worked in the energy industry at that time - there was no actual shortage at all

Again, have you even read the proposal before reverting to your anti-federal government stance? It would eliminate the NICS and remove the special treatment for shipping firearms.

Yes I did read it - Nowhere does it say eliminate the NICS; dammitboy was just saying how well it worked - why do you think a centralized federal gov't control over your guns is such a good idea?

It's about a cognitive dissonance in which the increase of freedom in restricted states and cities is butting against the dislike of the federal government. The focus on the perception of NYC and Chicago making the rules is probably necessary to maintain that dissonance. It's like opposing segregation reform at the federal level because of the fear that the worst states in the South will be setting the rules.

Right........if you truly think that NYC, DC, Chicago and the like won't set the rules, you are badly mistaken - national soft drink rule? not too far behind, but places like I mentioned will sure have input, even if it is to make the costs so prohibitive you can't own a gun.
As to shipping, there aren't a whole lot of regulations now, except involving handguns - which will just get more difficult - you will watch gun shows and FTF sales become illegal, you'll see only brick and mortar FFL's be allowed to do a transfer - and there will be a federal tax in that, you'll see so much added crap stuck into bills here and there - like is done now - that the 2nd will go away from a civilian standpoint

You folks need to revisit Germany in the 30's, and every other regime that instituted some form of gun registration and see what happened

DammitBoy

November 29, 2012, 03:13 PM

My state do not infringe on my rights to the extent that the fed does

Well as long as your State doesn't, I guess it's all good! :rolleyes:

You keep referring to more and more of our gun rights being trampled upon, what's your solution to stop it? I see you badmouthing this person's proposal - but zero positive input on your part.

Are you just resigned to the idea that eventually we will lose the right to bear arms?

Axel Larson

November 29, 2012, 04:16 PM

The solution from my stand point is to keep fighting off bad legislation and to keep giving money when we can to the NRA and other related organizations, as well as to write your senators and congressmen.
We have won major battles recently DC handgun ban was lifted.
It is slow, it is painful but we are getting there.
I would love the NFA to be repealed but not at the cost of the federal government having more play in what happens.
And the ATF would be involved even more, anyone forgot about fast and furious yet?

guyfromohio

November 29, 2012, 05:19 PM

Honestly .... I would dig my heels in far further to the right, but might be satisfied with that scenario. I already have an ID CHL with my state.... why not a national one?

justice06rr

November 29, 2012, 11:01 PM

I would probably only agree with #5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

The rest is really debatable. I understand the person who made the proposal did it with good intentions, but there are just too many factors to consider.

Although its great that it proposes to even the playing field on firearms laws/regulations on a national level, it will be debated and argued to death and never come to an agreeable outcome for everyone involved.

thecarfarmer

November 29, 2012, 11:31 PM

Well, what I've seen out of governments - state, federal, local... doesn't matter which... once they get their foot in the door, they keep inching along, until they get what they wanted.

Once any government is allowed to oversee/regulate/control something, they will then have an office to do so. The document which allows them control generally is worded so that their scope of oversight is allowed to be expanded - by themselves.

From the standpoint of staying free, allowing the government to start a new program of oversight is kinda' like allowing Col. Sanders to guard your chicken coop, isn't it?

-Bill

oneounceload

November 30, 2012, 03:55 PM

OK folks - for those who think that giving in to the antis and libs so you can have a national Gun ID is a great idea with no downside:

here is a lib calling for liberal control of free speech - if you folks REALLY think you will win, you are so sadly mistaken. Try reading history about what Nazi Germany did to gun owners and every other socialist government

You want a big central government making the rules? Why not compromise and push for abolishing the states and having us all live under one big central socialist government? Think of the cost savings, think of the minimalizing of states rules against gun ownership;
"“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

you folks really need to rethink this BS, because you are giving up freedoms without getting anything from the antis - they l;earned their stance well from Stalin - it is called "Soviet Style Negotiations" - it means there is no "win-win" scenario - it means they win you lose....been there done that on corporate mergers and have had my fair share of doing the negotiations
YOU will have to compromise, and when you ask them to do so after you give in, they will not

Look at the news about the current Fiscal Cliff - the lib stance is "give us tax hikes now and we will discuss spending cuts later"

If you think, when it comes to guns, you are going to win, you are blind to reality

You will give and give - more than we did in 1968 and 1986, and you will get squat and go home thinking you won.............

Texan Scott

November 30, 2012, 04:27 PM

What some seem to either not grasp, or are else comfortable with, is that every power of the federal government is gained by usurping and superceding the power of a state government. Power given away is all but impossible to peacably reclaim. Our Founders SPECIFICALLY FORBADE the federal government to regulate firearms for this very reason!

As a Texan, I simply should not have to sit by and allow California, New York, New Jersey, or Illinois to have any say in how my rights are exercised in my home state. They shouldn't even get a vote, not even a seat at the table, not even a voice in the discussion. I do not CARE what compromise they think would be "reasonable", because I shouldn't have to compromise with them.

All bad precedents begin as "reasonable" expediencies.

I am not a Texas Secessionist, but I understand the anger and fear that drives it. Just in the past month, our president tried - TRIED - to force the State of Texas to submit to regulatory oversight of our voting process BY EUROPEANS - apparently to ensure that we're obeying our own law. Not including that incident, by my count the current governor and AG have filed suit against the US government SIX times to obtain legal injuctions against unconstitutional infrigements of the State's legal rights and authority.

I don't trust the federal government - especially this one - to regulate car exhaust, much less my RKBA.

No compromise.

srawl

November 30, 2012, 07:38 PM

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It doesnt say anything about type of guns or who should own them... its a right of the people that "shall not" be infringed... if anything we should have the same weapons as the military in order to form that "well regulated militia." The laws shouldnt have been passed in the first place. Something needs done (which we all agree) but the idea of the a national ID card when we all have state IDs recognized by the national government doesnt seem like the answer... to many variables...

Warp

November 30, 2012, 07:50 PM

I stopped at #1 as it is a violation of the Second Amendment.

srawl

November 30, 2012, 09:05 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

That is a well regulated militia...

Spats McGee

December 1, 2012, 02:35 PM

Texan Scott said it well enough that I'm just going to shamelessly plagiarize and edit. If I were a Texan, I wouldn't even edit.
As a Texan Arkansan, I simply should not have to sit by and allow California, New York, New Jersey, or Illinois to have any say in how my rights are exercised in my home state. They shouldn't even get a vote, not even a seat at the table, not even a voice in the discussion. I do not CARE what compromise they think would be "reasonable", because I shouldn't have to compromise with them.

Warp

December 1, 2012, 07:09 PM

Texan Scott said it well enough that I'm just going to shamelessly plagiarize and edit. If I were a Texan, I wouldn't even edit.

I understand why you feel that way, but even Arkansas is part of the United States and is subject to Federal law.

Texan Scott

December 1, 2012, 08:42 PM

The point being made here is that the proposed federal law to which we would be "subject" (subjected) would be flagrantly unconstitutional, for reasons previously propounded. We aren't arguing that we shouldn't obey federal law; only that the other States (using the federal legislature as a mechanism) lack authority, and so should not be permitted, to infringe the RKBA outside their own borders.

DammitBoy

December 1, 2012, 09:45 PM

Scott, are you saying it's ok for states to infringe upon the rkba inside their borders?

larryh1108

December 1, 2012, 10:42 PM

How is the proposed statement any more flagrant than the current laws in TX or any other state? Do you need a permit for handguns? Can you drive to NM and buy a handgun and bring it back? What is so flagrant that even Texas hasn't already done?

Spats McGee

December 1, 2012, 11:16 PM

Texan Scott said it well enough that I'm just going to shamelessly plagiarize and edit. If I were a Texan, I wouldn't even edit.
I understand why you feel that way, but even Arkansas is part of the United States and is subject to Federal law.
I've aware of that and have never claimed otherwise.

But let's take a look at #1 from the OP:
1. A National ID Card issued to any law-abiding citizen that passes a background check and a safety qualification course.
I took this to mean a standardized, national safety qualification course. One of my problems with regulating something like a safety qualification course for the RKBA at the federal level is the same objection that I have to a National CCL. It allows more out-of-state legislators to meddle in things inside my state, where they have no business. For example, in setting standards for the safety qualification course at the federal level, compromises will have to be reached. That means that legislators from (relatively gun-friendly) Arkansas will have to compromise with legislators from the less gun-friendly states. There's really only one possible outcome for that: more restriction on the gun-friendly states.

Warp

December 1, 2012, 11:18 PM

I agree with your thinking.

I don't want the federal government doing anything with the RKBA...unless they are simply removing laws from the books, of course.

Texan Scott

December 2, 2012, 02:19 AM

Scott, are you saying it's ok for states to infringe upon the rkba inside their borders?

No. But that's not the issue raised by the OP's question. I'm arguing against a federalized firearms ownership registry because that is what was, in effect, proposed.

LarryH, this is my point: whatever Texas has done has been done within the scope of its own sovereign authority, without circumventing the US Constitution.

Of course, it should also be pointed out that TX doesn't require a permit to buy firearms, has no firearms registration scheme, and the reason I can't buy pistols in other states is that it's against FEDERAL law for me to do so.

DammitBoy

December 2, 2012, 03:55 PM

No. But that's not the issue raised by the OP's question.

Actually it is exactly the issue raised by the OP proposal.

It tries to eliminate as many regulations state and federal that are an infringement on the rkba.

It removes barrel length restrictions, state carry restrictions, state to state sales restrictions, magazine restrictions, silencer restrictions, the manufacture date restriction on machine guns, individual state awb restrictions, and would put in place a mechanism to block future regulations at the state and federal level.

I'm thinking of using several great suggestions in this thread to make a counter proposal to post at the other social/game forum that would address a lot of the complaints in this thread.

Things like a "shall issue" clause and letting states handle their own safety course requirements...

Neverwinter

December 2, 2012, 11:50 PM

No, there wasn't- I worked in the energy industry at that time - there was no actual shortage at all
In your words there were gas crunches in the 70s. That was the springboard for you to start the screed against the federal government for creating a "one size fits all" solution. If legislation is made to conserve fuel by ensuring efficiency with speed limits, the higher population density states would be subsidizing the lower population states' burden. Which is okay I guess, if you like socialism.

Yes I did read it - Nowhere does it say eliminate the NICS;
3. The bearer will be able to buy any firearm in any state of the Union without additional backgrounds checks upon presentation of the National ID Card.
As mentioned before, you should read it again.

Right........if you truly think that NYC, DC, Chicago and the like won't set the rules, you are badly mistaken - national soft drink rule? not too far behind, but places like I mentioned will sure have input, even if it is to make the costs so prohibitive you can't own a gun.
Their power is proportional to their representation in Congress, which means that they are a small minority.

As to shipping, there aren't a whole lot of regulations now,
So you were incorrect when you mentioned that we can no longer mail-order firearms to our house from a catalog? Interesting.

Neverwinter

December 2, 2012, 11:58 PM

I'm thinking of using several great suggestions in this thread to make a counter proposal to post at the other social/game forum that would address a lot of the complaints in this thread.

Things like a "shall issue" clause and letting states handle their own safety course requirements...
It would also be a good idea to clarify the shipping capabilities.

Allowing the states to handle their own safety course requirements can present another set of problems where they can set unrealistic standards for the testing. The range qualification should be no more stringent than the state law enforcement officer qualification.

Warp

December 3, 2012, 12:01 AM

The range qualification should be no more stringent than the state law enforcement officer qualification.

There shouldn't be a range qualification requirement.

helitack32f1

December 4, 2012, 02:53 AM

There shouldn't be a range qualification requirement.
Exactly!

And there cannot be a national ID card tied to this either. Period. Just as the new health care law can be used to affect gun ownership, so too can the National ID card. All they have to do is keep raising the price for the ID and that already starts to limit those who can afford to protect and defend themselves.

Neverwinter

December 5, 2012, 12:15 AM

There shouldn't be a range qualification requirement.
Should there be a written test qualification requirement?

Warp

December 5, 2012, 12:29 AM

Should there be a written test qualification requirement?

No.

Neverwinter

December 5, 2012, 12:38 AM

No.
So how do you validate successful completion of the safety course?

Warp

December 5, 2012, 12:56 AM

So how do you validate successful completion of the safety course?

You don't.

Texan Scott

December 5, 2012, 02:31 AM

People are debating implementation details.... people are talking about infringements such a bill might promise to remove... people are overlooking the fact that if a federal permit is required to keep and bear arms, bureaucrats of the federal government will have absolute authority to decide who can legally keep and bear arms.

Our Founders absolutely feared this and expressly forbade it! I am surprised by how many people are willing to compromise on the fundamental point of the 2A - no federal infringement on the RKBA - for some nice-sounding promises of a few goodies.

Texan Scott

December 5, 2012, 02:52 AM

DB, I first wrote and proposed this November 14, here at THR. I'd like to resubmit it as MY counterproposal to the one being discussed.

Ratify the following as the next amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"It is the unquestionable natural right of all free people to own and carry weapons to protect and provide for themselves, their families, and others, to defend the safety of people and property, and preserve common law and order. This right shall not be abridged, denied, or infringed by any act of government, to include regulation, record keeping or registration, narrow definition, taxation, or any other act which has the intent or effect of limiting or impeding this right of free people."

Do this, and we'll see how willing the antis are to make "reasonable compromises" on their own end.

General Geoff

December 5, 2012, 03:00 AM

A national ID card required to keep and bear arms, flies in the face of the concept of the Right to keep and bear arms.

If you have to ask permission, it's not a right.

DammitBoy

December 7, 2012, 10:46 AM

This is the proposal I'm submitting at the other forum to keep the conversation going there:

Being that the 2nd Amendment has been determined by the Supreme Court to be an Individual Right, the following changes are proposed:

1. A National ID Card shall be issued to any law-abiding citizen that requests one and passes a background check as well as their state safety qualification course. This safety qualification course cannot exceed the requirements placed on state law enforcement.

1. a) This card is not required, but optional and only issued at the request of the bearer.
1. b) This card may be renewed every five years.
1. c) The cost incurred for this card may not exceed $10.00

2. The bearer will be able to carry open or concealed in any State of the Union without restriction, except where barred by Federal Law.

3. The bearer will be able to buy any firearm in any state of the Union without additional backgrounds checks upon presentation of the National ID Card.

4. The bearer will be able to transport firearms anywhere within the United States, following standard shipping safety practices. The term shipping does not apply to open or concealed carry of a firearm or possession of a firearm while traveling.

5. The barrel length of a firearm will no longer be subject to state or federal government regulation.

6. Silencers will no longer be subject to state or federal government regulation.

7. Magazine capacity will no longer be subject to state or federal government regulation.

8. The manufacture date of a firearm will no longer be subject to state or federal government regulation.

9. Cosmetic features of a firearm will not be subject to state or federal government regulation.

10. Conviction of a violent felony revokes one's right to bear this card.

11. Citizenship is required to bear this card.

12. The involuntary commitment to a mental health facility revokes ones right to bear this card.

14. No new regulations may be added regarding firearms except by a three-fourths vote of the House and Senate.

Warp

December 7, 2012, 12:28 PM

That walks all over state's rights.

Would be a nice result, though, for gun owners

CZguy

December 8, 2012, 01:30 AM

That walks all over state's rights.

State's gave up their rights after the civil war.

Texan Scott

December 8, 2012, 01:43 AM

You're still talking about reducing regulation by giving all regulatory power to the federal government. The whole point of the 2A is that we were never meant to ask the federal government... we were not to require their consent.

If you want to reduce regulation, just deregulate. If you actually like the idea of standardized federal regulation, you and I are just not going to come to an understanding.

Warp

December 8, 2012, 01:35 PM

State's gave up their rights after the civil war.

Not a good enough excuse.

DammitBoy

December 8, 2012, 09:57 PM

States have no right to infringe upon an enumerated constitutional right.

There is no permission being requested or consent asked for in the proposal.

Tcruse

December 8, 2012, 10:39 PM

What would you think that a requirement to pass a "firearms safety, legal self defense use and qualification" test for a high school graduation. Just like a history or government course. Probably should be a college requirement also.
Otherwise, anyone should be able to purchase and carry a firearm in locations not restricted by the property owner or by local governments.
The current laws really do not do much in that people that do not pass the background test generally will get firearms illegally (stolen) if they really want them. Criminals will always have a way.
I do like the current CCW license and renew requirements in that the legal use of deadly force is not well understood by many. Especially, worry when I see postings about "kill" rather than "stop the threat".

Warp

December 8, 2012, 10:51 PM

What would you think that a requirement to pass a "firearms safety, legal self defense use and qualification" test for a high school graduation. Just like a history or government course. Probably should be a college requirement also.
Otherwise, anyone should be able to purchase and carry a firearm in locations not restricted by the property owner or by local governments.
The current laws really do not do much in that people that do not pass the background test generally will get firearms illegally (stolen) if they really want them. Criminals will always have a way.
I do like the current CCW license and renew requirements in that the legal use of deadly force is not well understood by many. Especially, worry when I see postings about "kill" rather than "stop the threat".

Firearms Safety in school, yes, I would vote for that. Bring back Eddie Eagle, why not?

Self defense and qualification? Don't know about that.

Neverwinter

December 8, 2012, 11:55 PM

I do like the current CCW license and renew requirements in that the legal use of deadly force is not well understood by many. Especially, worry when I see postings about "kill" rather than "stop the threat".
You can't verify their knowledge of such without a test, and even then the test only validates that they understand the content, not necessarily that they will apply it appropriately.

CZguy

December 9, 2012, 12:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CZguy
State's gave up their rights after the civil war.

Originally Posted by Warp
Not a good enough excuse.

Well then......it's fortunate that I didn't offer it as an excuse, but more along the lines of a historical fact.

ExTank

December 9, 2012, 01:36 AM

I'm not sure if this has already been said (don't want to wade through five pages of thread!) but I would resist a sweeping "nationalization" of the RKBA, because it places way too much power in an already run-amok federal government, and it would also place the RKBA at the whim of political fashion and expediency.

Let it stay at the State level, since many states seem to be "growing a pair" when it comes to standing up to the federal government.

ExTank, why should you have better 2nd amendment rights in one state than other citizens have in their state?

States should have no say on your constitutional rights.

Tcruse

December 9, 2012, 09:01 AM

I was mostly thinking about "Stand your Ground" and "Castle" laws being covered. There seems to be a lot of different understandings of what these laws contain. Covering these in high school would not only set the ideas of "Self Defense" in the students but would probably also leak information to the parents.

For qualification, I was thinking about something like a man size target (not necessarily looking like a person) at 8 yds using a .22LR pistol. A .22 rifle at 15 yrs and a 410 shot gun. Having shot each of these in high school would go a long way in removing the fear of guns and help these students become less fearful of getting ccw when they are adults. I also realize that probably "opt out" would be required to get past the expected objections.

I think these laws are very important part of our current 2A implementations. Every time the application of these principals goes wrong it becomes a talking point to impose more restrictions. A recent example is the Zimmerman case.